googologywikiaorg-20200223-history
Talk:Graham Array Notation
Lot of rules This has an awful lot of rules. Isn't there any way to simplify it? KthulhuHimself (talk) 09:35, October 26, 2015 (UTC) :should we keep this article? the notation is super sloppy and higher parts of it are ill defined, at least starting with a^b^c. Cookiefonster (talk) 12:30, October 26, 2015 (UTC) ::I say we should. It's well sourced, which means that if we delete it, we sort of contradict the fact that the wiki accepts the "bear minimum" in terms of backing. If it weren't for that, though, I'd say delete it. ::KthulhuHimself (talk) 15:02, October 26, 2015 (UTC) :::my proposal to delete this page comes from this forum post by vell. it doesn't really have historical significance, and is ill-defined (at the very least the higher parts certainly are). oh yeah and to answer your original question, it can certainly have its definition simplified, but the guy who made it doesn't understand how to properly make a notation ruleset. i mean, he listed cases for 1, 2, up to 6-entry arrays or something like that, and when i asked him to make a general rule instead of having us deduce the rest, he just added more examples up to 11-entry arrays or something. *sigh* Cookiefonster (talk) 16:40, October 26, 2015 (UTC) ::I'm leaning against it. As a combination of the above reason, and that the wiki states that the wiki is a bad source here, as well as it effectively being original work (it's citations are blog posts, on this wiki), this feels like it should be deleted, and that editing of the notation should be kept to blog posts until at least an external source is created for it. Emlightened (talk) 02:40, January 1, 2016 (UTC) \(\ Antares.H \) 10:24, December 6, 2015 (UTC) Ill Defined This notation, despite being better than before, still is ill defined. Let'stand go over the rules. The first rule says, "The default bracket is []. An array must be inside []." OK. No problem there. the second rule says, "If 1 is the second entry the 1 and everything after it shold be cropped off.". Standard enough, and completely well defined. This rule has been deleted To add to the mix up, the fourth rule says, "Any 1's that are not the first or second entry may be deleted." Umm... What? So first we delete everything only when the second entry is a one, and This rule has been deleted. Answer : Second entries are a special case, and may not be overriden by this rule. The fifth rule is rather odd. It says, "An empty bracket [] may be deleted." Follows the question: why would you want to put an empty bracket inside an array if it doesn't do anything? Answer : There can be. [3,3,1] where the 1 is deleted, It becomes [3,3,[]]. So the emptry array must be cropped off. The sixth rule says, "The same rules for 1's applies to 0's." So wait, now zeroes are the default entry? This doesn't help at all, regardless of the fact that it's based on rules 2-4 which are ill defined. Answer : Explained in the latest revision General Answer : Thank for the feedback, although this is a WIP, there must have been ill definitions, because I didn't spend much time on this. So I'll guess I'll start working Maybe called Googology Noob (talk) 19:35, December 15, 2015 (UTC) :i love how someone who calls himself "googology noob" can tell that this notation is not well said. Cookiefonster (talk) 12:55, December 16, 2015 (UTC) ::I'm a boy. Thanks. I guess I'm not totally a "googology noob", but calling myself a googology expert would be presumptuous (and incorrect), and "googology mediocre person" just doesn't cut it. In retrorespect, maybe I should have called myself "Just Another Googologist", but oh well. Too late now. Maybe called Googology Noob (talk) 13:26, December 16, 2015 (UTC) ::it almost seems like everyone on the wiki either understands googology perfectly or is awful at it. Cookiefonster (talk) 14:35, December 16, 2015 (UTC) :::Lol. Quite true when you look at things. Maybe called Googology Noob (talk) 19:36, December 16, 2015 (UTC) Do you guys EVER read the "Work in Progress" Sign BEFORE saying this is ill defined? No meant to sound aggresive. \(\ Antares.H \) 00:45, January 1, 2016 (UTC) : A: Arguably, if it is a WIP, why put it on the wiki? (Not going to argue about that though. Wiki policy isn't my strong suit.) : B: Please, next time don't edit my comments like that. Just post your answers as a different comment. :C: Good to see that you've fixed it! Still don't see the point of the last rule, but your choice. Maybe called Googology Noob (talk) 19:36, January 2, 2016 (UTC) Redundant Sections Thought I should post it here, but I've deleted the seven sections that only contain 'WIP' and the empty section, and compacted their titles into the new section called 'Future Arrays'. Being a WIP doesn't mean reserving a section for each new stage of a notation. They can be added as and when they are created, and don't need to clutter up the page. Emlightened (talk) 01:35, January 1, 2016 (UTC) FGH comparison This actually is more related to Conway's chained arrows than to BEAF: they both reduce the most important argument each time. There are two differences. One is aesthetic: in chained arrows the last argument is the most important, and here it's the second last. The other is practical: when there's a one, chained arrows remove everything after it, while here only the one is removed. This slightly improves the strength, but doesn't boost it past f_w^2(n). :I still think this article should be deleted because the stuff there is so badly defined and it doesn't really have special significance to googology. Cookiefonster (talk) 18:10, January 22, 2016 (UTC) ::I don't agree with you. It's way better defined than before (at least these rules work), and lots of things on this wiki don't really have a special significance to googology. ::What I do think should be deleted is Ultra Psi Notation. The definition is ambiguous, unclear and above all, it just doesn't work. Any array of length above 2 produces an array with longer length and where each of the arguments is greater than before. ::It says that it is a WIP for literally almost a year. Should an undefined, ambiguous work in progress be on the wiki? Maybe called Googology Noob (talk) 08:54, January 23, 2016 (UTC)